ANAND SWAROOP,DELHI V. ITO WARD 60(6), DELHI

ITA 3306/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the legality of a notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, to Anand Swaroop for the assessment year 2015-16. The notice, initially issued on 30.06.2021 under the unamended Act, was later considered a show cause notice following a Supreme Court decision. A subsequent notice was issued on 14.07.2022, which became the focal point of the dispute regarding its timeliness and legality. The assessee contended that this notice was time-barred based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajeev Bansal, which set a deadline for issuing such notices. The Income Tax Department defended the validity of the notice, but the tribunal, referencing several Supreme Court and High Court decisions, including its own precedent in Girish Kumar Gupta, ruled in favor of the assessee, leading to the quashing of the notice and any related assessments.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 791164 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal, Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal, Deepak Steel and Power Limited Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors, ACIT & Ors vs. Nehal Ashit Shah, Make My trip India Private Limited vs. DCIT, Kum Kum Kohli Vs. Asst. CIT, Harish Kumar vs. NFAC, Pritam Kumar Versus DCIT Central Circle-19 (1) New Delhi, Girish Kumar Gupta, Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), Pratishtha Garg vs. ACIT, Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CBDT & Ors
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: TARANDEEP SINGH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. The I.T.O IX/636, Krishna Gali No. 2 Ward – 60(6) Subhash Road, Gandhi Nagar Delhi Delhi PAN – AAXPS 6560 J (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Shri Jatin Kapoor, CA Department By : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .12.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 20.03.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. ITO Page 2 of 7 2. At the very outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the issue raised in this appeal is covered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70. 3. Brief facts of the case are that Notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] was issued under the unamended Act to the assessee on 30.06.2021. This notice was considered as show cause notice in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Ashish Agarwal reported in 444 ITR 1 (SC) dated 04.05.2022. Finally, notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 14.07.2022. The bone of contention is whether the subsequent notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 14.07.2022 is to be treated as time barred or not in the light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal reported in 469 ITR 46 (SC). 4. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.07.2021 has been issued after the ‘surviving period’ as explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal 167 taxmann.com 70. The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that fresh notice u/s 148 of the Act could have been issued only upto 01.07.2022 and therefore the notice is barred by limitation. The ld AR placed reliance on the following decisions: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. ITO Page 3 of 7 i. Deepak Steel and Power Limited Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes & Ors civil appeal No 5177 of 2025 dated 02-04-2025 (SC) ii. ACIT & Ors vs. Nehal Ashit Shah SLP (civil) Diary No 57209/2024 dated 04-04-2025 (SC) iii) Make My trip India Private Limited vs. DCIT, WP (C) 2557/2023 dated 24-03-2025 Delhi High Court iv. Kum Kum Kohli Vs. Asst. CIT W.P. (C) 930/2023 dated 30-05-2025( Del) v. Harish Kumar vs. NFAC ITA No. 4602/Del/2024 and ITA no. 4676/Del/2024 dated 18-06-2025 Delhi; vi. Pritam Kumar Versus DCIT Central Circle-19 (1) New Delhi 2025 (7) TMI 1748-ITAT DELHI 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. On the issue of limitation for issuance of notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16, we find that the hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CBDT & Ors., (supra), referring to its decision in Union of India and ors. v. Rajeev Bansal, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2693, more particularly, paragraph 19(f), observed that:- \"19. (f) The Revenue concedes that for the assessment year 2015- 2016, all notices issued on or after April 1, 2021 will have to be dropped as they will not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the Taxation and other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions) Act, 2020.\" Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. ITO Page 4 of 7 5. As the revenue made a concession in the aforesaid decision that is for the assessment year 2015-2016, all notices issued on or after 1st April, 2021 will have to be dropped as they would not fall for completion during the period prescribed under the taxation and other laws (Relaxation and Amendment of certain Provisions Act, 2020). Nothing further is required to be adjudicated in this matter as the notices so far as the present litigation is concerned is dated 25.6.2021. 6. In view of the aforesaid, in such circumstances referred to above the original writ petition nos. 2446 of 2023, 2543 of 2023 and 2544 of 2023 respectively filed before the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack stands allowed.\" 7. The coordinate bench of ITAT in the case of Girish Kumar Gupta [2025] 175 taxmann.com 1037 (Delhi - Trib.) has discussed the identical issue at hand at considerable length and has arrived at the following conclusion: “8. Looking to the facts and considering the assessment year involved is 2015-16, notice issued in the case of originally on 13/04/2021 and later on 18/07/2022 which both the dates have fallen on or after 1st April, 2021, therefore, both the notice deserves to be dropped in view of the admission made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further, for Assessment Year 2015-16, no notice u/s 148 of the Act could be issued after the expiring of six years from Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. ITO Page 5 of 7 the end of the relevant assessment year which limitation expired on 31st March, 2022. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) has observed that TOLA is not applicable for Asst. Year 2015-16, therefore, even otherwise under the old provisions of section 149 of the Act, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act for Asst. Year 2015-16 on 18/07/2022 is barred by limitation. 9. This view is supported by the order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ibibo Group Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle 10(1), W.P.(C) 17639/2022 wherein vide order dated 13.12.2024, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court after relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Bansal (supra) has quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Pratishtha Garg vs. ACIT in W.P.(C)- 16878/2024 vide order dated 19/12/2024 has expressed the same view. Further, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Makemytrip India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, in W.P.(C) 2557/2023 vide order dated 24.03.2025 has also expressed the same view. 10. It is also relevant to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5177/2025 vide its order dated 2nd April, 2025 in the case of Deepak Steel & Power Ltd. vs. CBDT & Ors. in identical fact has allowed the SLP filed by the Revenue. **** 8. Admittedly, in the instant case, the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 14.07.2022. The new notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. ITO Page 6 of 7 should have been issued upto 01.07.2022 including the surviving period. In the instant case, the impugned notice u/s 148 being issued after the limitation period, can not but be considered as barred by limitation and is liable to be quashed. Furthermore, in the light of the admission made by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the notice u/s 148 for AY 2015-16 in any case, is to be dropped. We order accordingly and we also quash the assessment order emanating out of such notice u/s 148 of the Act. 9. Since the notice u/s 148 is quashed, no separate adjudication is made on other grounds. Further, as the assessment order has been quashed, all the issues raised by the assessee in his appeal which deal with the merits of the case become academic and infructuous and require no separate adjudication. Grounds of appeal are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 10.12.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 10th December, 2025. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3306/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2015-16] Anand Swaroop Vs. ITO Page 7 of 7 VL/ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) Asst. Registrar, 5. DR ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "